Name File Type Size Last Modified
  README 11/16/2023 10:38:AM
  data 11/09/2023 02:34:PM
  figures 10/13/2023 06:25:PM
  paper 11/16/2023 10:39:AM
  tables 11/15/2023 11:56:AM

Project Citation: 

Gardner, Camille, and Henry, Peter Blair. Data and Code for:  The Global Infrastructure Gap: Potential, Perils, and a Framework for Distinction. Nashville, TN: American Economic Association [publisher], 2023. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2023-12-05. https://doi.org/10.3886/E183303V1

Project Description

Summary:  View help for Summary One billion people live more than 2 kilometers from an all-weather road, and 1.2 billion have no access to electricity. In 2015, the World Bank claimed that rich-country private capital could: (i) close the infrastructure services gap in poor countries, (ii) achieve the sustainable development goals, and (iii) make money by moving from “billions to trillions” of investment in poor-country infrastructure. We introduce a simple framework that distinguishes those poor countries in which the Bank’s three-fold claim is tenable from those where it is not. For a given poor country, the framework reveals that investing a dollar in infrastructure is efficient if the social rate of return on infrastructure in the poor country clears two hurdles: (a) the social rate of return on private capital in the poor country, and (b) the social rate of return on private capital in rich countries. Applying the framework to the only comprehensive, cross-country data set of social rates of return on infrastructure indicates that in 1985 just 7 of 53 poor countries cleared the dual hurdles in both paved roads and electricity generating capacity. Where it was efficient to invest in infrastructure, however, the potential for excess social returns was significant—seven times larger, on average, than the excess financial returns that existed in publicly traded emerging-market stocks before foreigners were permitted to own shares. These results suggest that the dual-hurdle framework provides a template which savers, investors, and policymakers can use to prioritize poor-country infrastructure investments with maximal potential to drive greater growth, asset returns, and sustainability, even as new data become available.

Scope of Project

Subject Terms:  View help for Subject Terms social rate of return; infrastructure; private capital; infrastructure gap; equilibrium; public capital
JEL Classification:  View help for JEL Classification
      E22 Investment; Capital; Intangible Capital; Capacity
      F21 International Investment; Long-term Capital Movements
      G15 International Financial Markets
Geographic Coverage:  View help for Geographic Coverage Myanmar, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, Portugal, Syria, Austria, Mozambique, El Salvador, Mali, Panama, Brazil, Guatemala, Algeria, Chile, Nepal, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina, Japan, Zambia, Ghana, Congo, India, New Zealand, Turkey, Belgium, Senegal, Finland, Italy, Honduras, Jamaica, Peru, Germany, Fiji, Egypt, Thailand, Bolivia, Costa Rica, C.A.R., Netherlands, Sweden, U.S., Pakistan, Malawi, Gambia, China, Ireland, U.K., Jordan, Tunisia, Korea, Sri Lanka, Niger, Uruguay, Philippines, Kenya, Liberia, Bangladesh, Nicaragua, Norway, Botswana, Dominican Republic, Denmark, Mexico, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Australia, Indonesia
Time Period(s):  View help for Time Period(s) 1985 – 2005
Collection Date(s):  View help for Collection Date(s) 2000 – 2018
Data Type(s):  View help for Data Type(s) administrative records data


Related Publications

Published Versions

Export Metadata

Report a Problem

Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.

This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.